New Blood

[3.0] "The idea? Solid. Execution? horrid. I think the idea of a stable of disgruntled underdogs and people who believe they have been screwed over and forgotten about by the top talent and the most recognized of a wrestling promotion is a good idea if done with the best of booking. But, of course, this is WCW in the year 2000 with Vince Russo being the main person behind it. First of all, these guys should have been faces, or literally anything that *isn't* heel. Sure, you're pitting them against your most popular talent, people that the audience are going to root for, but surely you can book your stable of underappreciated talent in a way that can elevate everyone involved? Certainly putting all the top guys into a stable together regardless of their original alignments doesn't help anything either. Secondly, look at the members that are in the New Blood. Granted, not all of them are bad workers, in fact you have some that are considered hall of fame worthy, or at least really good and/or underrated in hindsight. People like Jeff Jarret, Shane Douglas, Mike Awesome, Billy Kidman, Crowbar, Kanyon, Chris Candido, etc. There was a lot of good talent here, just ignore the booking of each of them and their gimmicks at the time. But, there was also a ton of people in the New Blood where it was obvious why they weren't ever gonna be top of the card, or were even good to begin with. Horace Hogan, Disco Inferno (who, granted, isn't the worst but definitely wasn't material), The Wall, David Flair, etc. The stable was bloated to begin with, and was already seen as a joke that was going to end prematurely and with no fanfare. You could have chosen 10 of the best in this lineup and kick everyone else out and it would've been improved tenfold. It's just another example of Vince Russo quite literally being the dumbest booker of all time."

[3.0] "How could you rate higher anything that happened in 2000 WCW? Even if it was a good idea on paper..."

[2.0] "The New Blood was a good idea on paper, but since it was WCW in 2000, everything about this stable from it's inception to how it was booked was no short of being ass backwards. Why were they the heels? And why would they use blood? Is it cause they were named The New Blood? Doesn't make sense."

[2.0] "Growing out of the Russo/Bischoff reboot of WCW and featuring a lineup so overbloated it'd make even the NWO at the height of its membership numbers blush (entire other stables, including the Natural Born Thrillers and Filthy Animals, were counted among its ranks), the main issue with the New Blood was simply that it was booked completely backwards - the young upstarts who claim older stars are holding them back were presented as the bad guys, while said older stars trying to hold onto their spots were supposed to be the good guys - and the fans just couldn't buy into the story."

[4.0] "How were these guys not faces? I mean I know they weren't faces because they came off as totally whinny entitled cheaters, and half of them had been heels beforehand, but watching wcw at the time, I completely bought into their plight."